About your Search

20121112
20121120
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
ronald reagan not making the case for immigration, but for amnesty, using that word. republicans are pro-immigration but they have been afraid of the past six years of the anti- immigration law me. immigration lobby. now i think this election cycle has dramatically changed that. i can at least number half a dozen radio and tv talk shows that have already said, you know what, my position has evolved, now time for immigration reform. now -- i am for immigration reform. that is good, because it will give cover for republicans who have avoided this issue and want to deal with this issue to actually do it. immigration and being for immigration reform is the conservative position. restrictionism part of the nationalist protectionist paradigm t. if we are the party of the family and a free-market, the gop is, we should not in any way have a restrictionist position. if we are for the family, i don't see why we should be calling for supporting hundreds of thousands of families and in this country -- operating hundreds of thousands of families in this country. many have been here for decades. why
intellect or exercise in ideology. i covered ronald reagan for six years. and if you want to discuss it some more, i can tell what you i learned in those six years of covering the presidency. it with a lot different than than what i thought it was going to be. it became clear to me that to a large degree, it is a test of the president's will and purpose. to believe in a few big things, to stand steady against the swirl of political controversy, opinion, nowadays, that's certainly not true for the presidents in this book. polls, advice from counselors, all kinds of things that would drive a president away from his core convictions to not necessarily do what he believed in or what he really believed to be best for the country. this is a book about character, about 16 presidents from george washington to george w. bush who all in a moment of national crisis did what they in their hearts believe was the right thing for the country, who showed character. not necessarily what turned out to be right. think there's some decisions they made that i don't know i agree with. and you can certainly argue
was it, 1982 or 1983, back in the 1980's, tip o'neill and ronald reagan got together and made adjustments to social security that saved the program. that's my point. sometimes you need to adjust and change to save the very thing you care most about. and so tip o'neill didn't sell out the democratic party by embracing that agreement. the democrats in congress, many of them very progressive at that time who supported it, didn't work traders to the party. if we do it in a responsible way, a balanced and doesn't just gut the programs and just not all entitlement reform with no revenue, i think the base of the party and leaders and organized labor will understand. they also know the alternative is doing nothing, with bad damage to jobs and the economy. and ultimately insolvency of these programs themselves, or. b, the right wing of the republicans are coming in and taking over because we have done nothing to solve the problem and their answer to the solution would be much more draconian. host: jack. he's our first phone call for the senator. republican. go ahead. caller: mr. bayh, one question
. there is that incentive as well. you have to look at ronald reagan as well as henry kissinger, when they went into negotiations, said you have to come willing to truly cut a deal. you may get 90%. >> takes both sides. obama is very good in liberal rhetoric blaming republicans. even in "l.a. times", obama wants to help the middle class but republicans don't want to give everything to the rich which is not true. and a lot of liberals are saying this was a mandate to raise taxes? i think people can be pro-choice, pro-day marriage and have fiscal responsibility and live within their means. jon: well, i mean to be honest, angela, the president campaigned on a platform saying i'm going to go back to the bill clinton tax rates and the wealthiest are going to have to pay more money and he won. >> but bill clinton worked with a republican congress and our economy was not in dire straits that it is right now. so if he really wants to go back to the bill clinton days he should go to the table and work with republicans. >> also you have to look taxes were historical high. one of the things they're talkin
expect over the next few weeks. >> good morning, and i begin john -- ronald reagan national airport. as we look at the holiday fast approaching thanksgiving next week, we're apt -- anticipating a busy travel season and men and women of tsa are standing ready to provide the most effective security in the most efficient way. we are anticipating over 24 million passengers traveling during the thanks giving holiday period. as you know, that create challenges and opportunities for the traveling public. especially those who travel infrequent i are. part of the reason is to encourage the infrequent travelers to visit the tsa website to understands the screening security process that will help the others in line deal with the longers lines as we usually see. it's been a busy and productive year for tsa as we focus on developing and testing and implementing a number of what we call risk-based security initiatives. things that are enables us to provide the most effective security and efficient way. risk-based security or rbs in the passenger screening context allows the tso two of whom you wi
examples of presidents who solved big problems by finding common ground with the other side. ronald reagan did it with a democratic-led house after a far more resounding second-term victory than president obama's, as did bill clinton, with a republican-controlled house and a republican-controlled senate after a more resounding second-term victory than president obama. both examples -- both of them -- illustrate the rare opportunity that divided government presents. president obama can follow suit or he can take the extremist view that both reagan and clinton rejected, by thumbing his nose at the other side and insisting that if republicans aren't willing to do things his way, he won't do anything at all. now, if the president's serious, he'll follow the leads of president reagan and clinton. if he's really serious, he'll put the campaign rhetoric aside, propose a realistic solution that can pass a republican-controlled house and a divided senate, and work to get it done. and if the president acts in this spirit, i have no doubt he'll have the support of his own party and a willing partner
been pro-immigration. ronald reagan was solidly for immigration reform, and if you go to youtube and google reagan-mondale debate, reagan making the case not for legalization, but for amnesty. using that word. now, republicans are pro-immigration, but they have been afraid for the past six years of anti-immigration lobby with an incredible political machine, and anybody who says anything constructive on immigration will be labeled pro-amnesty, and certainly, some talk show hosts, and now, i think this election cycle dramatically changed that. i can, at least, number half a dozen talk shows that said, you know what? my position evolved, and now i'm for immigration reform, but that is good because it will give cover to a lot of republicans who have avoided the issue or want to deal with the issue to actually do it so we have to reclaim the issue, and we can do it because immigration and being for immigration reform is actually the conservative position. restrictionists at the end is part of the nationalist, protectionist paradigm, and if we are the party of the family, if we ar
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)